25 replies to this topic

[Goose]

For the core-type debate:
http://www.tomshardw...5400k,3224.html

Chris Angelini, on September 26, 2012 9:50 PM said:

Let’s just say Trinity’s composition is…unique.

AMD’s new APU is the first component sporting its Piledriver x86 architecture. After the disappointment that was Bulldozer, which we first evaluated in FX-8150, hopes had to be pinned on a follow-up. And Trinity has it.

[Hougham]

I have a rather slow system. Its a AMD 1100T with 8gb DDR2 with HD4870. My CPU is similar ish to Grey Blacks and my RAM and GPU are all considerably slower. So have done a little test to see what my frame rate does on higher details. I am run at 720p with effects, object detail, particles, shading, shadows, texturing and environment all set to very high. If i'm in the tick of It my system does get a bit choppy and the frame rate drops in to the low 20s. Though I am yet to see anything close to 10fps. What settings are you running at Grey Black?

[xWiredx]

1280x720 is a pretty low resolution these days, he's probably running at least 1680x1050. Even the lower common laptop resolution today is 1366x768. Wouldn't be overly surprised if he's at 1920x1080, though, since most people are.

[ninjitsu]

Hougham, on 13 June 2014 - 03:07 AM, said:

I have a rather slow system. Its a AMD 1100T with 8gb DDR2 with HD4870. My CPU is similar ish to Grey Blacks and my RAM and GPU are all considerably slower. So have done a little test to see what my frame rate does on higher details. I am run at 720p with effects, object detail, particles, shading, shadows, texturing and environment all set to very high. If i'm in the tick of It my system does get a bit choppy and the frame rate drops in to the low 20s. Though I am yet to see anything close to 10fps. What settings are you running at Grey Black?

An 1100t is nothing like a 5800k, it's quite a bit faster with a completely different architecture. Sorry, it's hard to keep my nerd rage under control.

[Hougham]

ninjitsu, on 13 June 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

An 1100t is nothing like a 5800k, it's quite a bit faster with a completely different architecture. Sorry, it's hard to keep my nerd rage under control.

LOL your probably right. My comparison was just from a quick Google search where I found Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark tests that where showing both CPUs where not a million miles away from one another. I also found a few posts on the forum stating MWO was only optimised for up to 4 cpu threads making me think the extra cores in my system would not be fully utilized. Is there really that bigger difference in them? Just goes to show never trust Google

LOL I just realised that my PC was actually only running at 2ghz and not the 3.3/3.7ghz it was supposed to. The BIOS must have reverted to default when we had a power cut last month and I had just never noticed.

[ninjitsu]

The design of the new AMD processors is very different from your 1100t. You've got real cores where as the cores in the new CPU's share resources. The new cores work in pairs and must share the same floating point module as well as sharing access to cache. The effect of this, is good multi-threaded performance at the cost of greatly reduced single threaded efficiency.